City of Philadelphia Adds $199,999 to Boy Scout HQ Rent Due to Gay Ban

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
BrownEyedBoy said:
There´s really no point in arguing with people who won´t concede the fact that some people want their privacy. I´d rather not shower in front of someone who is attracted to my gender. And so would many other people. It´s that simple. But in interference you´re a bigot for even suggesting that you want your privacy.

Like Diemen says, maybe they should all wear armbands so you'd know. It's all about you, so why not?
 
BrownEyedBoy said:
] I´d rather not shower in front of someone who is attracted to my gender.

That's fine. But how do you know if someone is attracted to your gender? How do you know if the guy next to you is gay or straight? You don't. You may have already showered in front of gay men dozens of times already (assuming you've showered in a locker room, etc). So what you're arguing for (separation) doesn't make sense in this case, because there is no way of separating them unless you force them to identify their sexual orientation. And that's a clear violation of their rights.
 
Last edited:
phillyfan26 said:
All I'm saying is that they shouldn't be banned from something because of your insecurities. If you are really that paranoid that they can't control themselves, then YOU should be the one who finds somewhere else to bathe, or YOU should be the one to find a different scout group. It shouldn't be their fault that you're paranoid.


If I were to selfishly answer as you have I would say "I´m the normal one because I´m straight. If you want to change things up and add a new sexual orientation then YOU should move out. It´s not my fault that you´re gay."

That line of thinking gets you nowhere. Even if you do manage to convince ME there´s still a vast majority of people out there who do feel uncomfortable with their privacy.
 
BrownEyedBoy said:



If I were to selfishly answer as you have I would say "I´m the normal one because I´m straight. If you want to change things up and add a new sexual orientation then YOU should move out. It´s not my fault that you´re gay."

That line of thinking gets you nowhere.

Error #1: homosexuality is not a new sexual orientation.


And as an aside, go back 50 or 60 years:

"I'm the normal one because I'm white. If you want to change things up and sit at the front, then get your own buses. It's not my fault you're black."

But you're right, that line of thinking gets you nowhere. And yet you keep pushing for separation because you shouldn't be uncomfortable. So how exactly would this separation work? How would you separate homosexuals* from heterosexuals?

*Without violating their rights
 
BrownEyedBoy said:
there´s still a vast majority of people out there who do feel uncomfortable with their privacy.

I would say that actually the majority of people are uncomfortable with their privacy no matter who is next to them, whether they are gay or straight, male or female.

Besides (and you continue to ignore this), how is your privacy in danger if you can't visually tell who is gay anyway? Maybe everyone you've ever showered next to was gay. Maybe they weren't. Unless you knew them personally (and even then maybe not), you don't know. (which brings me back to how exactly you'd enact this separation...)
 
Last edited:
How about this? I´m currently reading "Capote", the biography (great book so far btw) and it tells of how the bigger, stronger boys would "use" (it was more along the lines of "molest") Capote in the night because he was the "lighter" one of the goup. Don´t tell me these things don´t happen in the army, in prisons, all over the place. So as you see, sometimes, you DO know who is gay and sometimes they are taken advantage of in these conditions. Even then, when we all know that there is a possibility of them becoming targets, you see no reason at all for separation?

How would I separate them? I don´t know. But I do think that keeping such close quarters between "opposite" sexual orientations might just be asking for trouble.
 
BrownEyedBoy said:
If I were to selfishly answer as you have I would say "I´m the normal one because I´m straight. If you want to change things up and add a new sexual orientation then YOU should move out. It´s not my fault that you´re gay."

That line of thinking gets you nowhere. Even if you do manage to convince ME there´s still a vast majority of people out there who do feel uncomfortable with their privacy.

How in the hell was my answer selfish?

Privacy is one thing. Segregation and discrimination is another. I don't understand how the fact that a homosexual is nearby in the bathroom is a violation of your privacy. It is segregation to ban them from the bathroom. It's a men's room, not a straight men's room.
 
I do not see the actions of bigots, abusers and bullies as justification for separating and/or minimizing one group from the rest of society.
 
Last edited:
Diemen said:
I do not see the actions of bigots as justification for separating and/or minimizing one group from society. Social justice does not stop for bigots.


So, what are we suppossed to do? Just wait for people to "control themselves", expect people to "tolerate" because "that´s the way it should be"? You´re being idealistic.
 
Who's not controlling themselves? Why do you assume that every homosexual is going to be checking you out? Why do you think they will be making sexual moves towards you in the bathroom?

Why would people need to tolerate? Maybe they could just go about their business and not worry about it! They certainly have been for the longest time.
 
BrownEyedBoy said:
How about this? I´m currently reading "Capote", the biography (great book so far btw) and it tells of how the bigger, stronger boys would "use" (it was more along the lines of "molest") Capote in the night because he was the "lighter" one of the goup. Don´t tell me these things don´t happen in the army, in prisons, all over the place. So as you see, sometimes, you DO know who is gay and sometimes they are taken advantage of in these conditions. Even then, when we all know that there is a possibility of them becoming targets, you see no reason at all for separation?

How would I separate them? I don´t know. But I do think that keeping such close quarters between "opposite" sexual orientations might just be asking for trouble.


You realize that in the examples you used (men forcing themselves on other men in prison,etc), the perpetrators are usually STRAIGHT. It is an act of power and control, not uncontrollable homosexual lust.
 
BrownEyedBoy said:



So, what are we suppossed to do? Just wait for people to "control themselves", expect people to "tolerate" because "that´s the way it should be"? You´re being idealistic.

Maybe Martin Luther King should have just given up. I mean, after all, plenty of blacks were getting beaten up and killed over the idea of social equality.

Women should've given up the fight for the vote.
Christians should have given up in the face of Roman persecution.
The American colonies should have given up in the face of British attack.
The Brits should have given up in the face of German attack.

Need I go on? Now I'm not saying all these are equal, but the point is the same. We make no progress when we cower in the face of oppression.
 
martha said:


Start it off by separating Spanish-speaking people and then wait. It'll take a generation for full acceptance to happen. I don't have anything against Spanish-speaking people but it's still a bit of a new issue for me and it will never appear to me as natural as my children most probably will view it.



:shrug: Sounds good to me. If I don't have to deal directly with Spanish-speaking people, I'll be a lot less uncomfortable. They can have their own tents, bathrooms, neighborhoods, etc. It's a win-win. :up:

It´s different. Spanish speaking people aren´t sexually attracted to english speaking people because of their "spanish speaking" condition.
 
You do realize that someone can be attracted to your gender and still be able to control themselves in your presence, right?

What exactly do you fear in all this? That some man is going to come on to you and you'll feel all icky?
 
BrownEyedBoy said:


It´s different. Spanish speaking people aren´t sexually attracted to english speaking people because of their "spanish speaking" condition.

Oh, by the way, it's not a condition, it's a natural part of who they are.

But that's certainly a revealing turn of phrase.
 
BrownEyedBoy said:
It´s different. Spanish speaking people aren´t sexually attracted to english speaking people because of their "spanish speaking" condition.

If Spanish=Gay...then

"Gay people are sexually attracted to straight people because of their gay condition."

Um, don't gays usually have relationships with, um, other gays?
 
BrownEyedBoy said:
There´s really no point in arguing with people who won´t concede the fact that some people want their privacy. I´d rather not shower in front of someone who is attracted to my gender. And so would many other people. It´s that simple. But in interference you´re a bigot for even suggesting that you want your privacy.

Then shower after everyone else is done, seems pretty simple to me. :shrug:
 
BrownEyedBoy said:

Just wait for people to "control themselves", expect people to "tolerate" because "that´s the way it should be"? You´re being idealistic.

What do you mean by "wait" to control themselves? Are people just thrusting themselves on you left or right or something?

Maybe he's being idealistic, but you're being paranoid.
 
BrownEyedBoy said:
You´re right. Screw segregation. Let´s have co-ed bathrooms. Just one bathroom for both males and females.

I love how for the sake of an argument people here will magically become oblivious to logical human behavior like separating bathrooms to ensure the privacy of opposite sexual genders.
If we'd all been raised with coed bathrooms and locker rooms then there's no logical reason to think that would be an issue. There's ample evidence from anthropology (e.g., studies of peoples among whom one or both sexes wear no clothing) to demonstrate that no, we are not hardwired to compulsively sexually assault one another at the sight of a naked body. In our own cultural tradition, it's seen as improper and immodest to be naked in front of people who have the other type of kit from you; those are (in theory at least) 'mysteries' they don't get to see outside of an intimate setting. And yes, that custom does create a sexual 'charge' around the situation (hence the proverbial teen-flick cliche of the secret peephole into the girls'/guys' locker room)--a 'charge' which would be missing in a culture with no such tradition. But for gay men and lesbians, it isn't a sexually charged situation because they share the body type of the people they're sharing the bathroom or locker room with, and that is the acculturated understanding of how those spaces are categorized; there's no 'mystery' involved. It's absurd to suggest that a gay man's experience of walking into a men's locker room, where people of his own body type are naked, has the same psychological effect on him that walking into the women's locker room would have on you--the former is culturally normative, whereas the latter is definitely not. Likewise, it's logical for a woman to be unnerved if a man suddenly appears in the women's locker room (and I can guarantee you happening to know said man is gay wouldn't be particularly reassuring in a moment like that), whereas it isn't logical at all for her to be unnerved if a woman she knows is lesbian walks in.

In a strange way this almost reminds me of the 'let's just have universal civil unions for everyone, including my neighbor and his dog' response to gay marriage--'Well if I have to put up with the possibility that someone of my own sex might cast a quick admiring glance at my butt while I shower (what's next?? being raped at gunpoint by the guy at the next locker?!?), then dammit, I don't think anyone should get any privacy at all.'
Bono's American Wife said:
You realize that in the examples you used (men forcing themselves on other men in prison,etc), the perpetrators are usually STRAIGHT. It is an act of power and control, not uncontrollable homosexual lust.
:yes: There have been quite a few sociological studies done on this, too...often the rapists call their (repeated) victims their 'bitches' and seek to create an environment of humiliation and intimidation above and beyond the rape itself. Non-normative social situation, non-normative social dynamic. Of course a similar dynamic applies to men raping women (which ties into why I said above that in the hypothetical of a man suddenly appearing in the women's locker room, a woman's reaction would not likely be different if she happened to know that particular man was gay).
 
Last edited:
Irvine511 said:




maybe this is generational, but i can't imagine being out in 8th grade.


DEFINITELY generational. The times, they are a-changing. . .slowly maybe, but they are changing. I'm seeing more and more students that I teach coming out and it not being as much of an issue. (Not all of them, of course and I wouldn't ever suggest it's "easy" now, but certainly more so than when I was in 8th grade).
 
Diemen said:
You do realize that someone can be attracted to your gender and still be able to control themselves in your presence, right?

:yes:. Any guys I've been around that I've liked, I've been able to control myself from throwing them to the floor right then and there, so you know, I'm thinking homosexuals aren't any different in that regard.

Diemen said:
What exactly do you fear in all this? That some man is going to come on to you and you'll feel all icky?

The question that begs to be asked is up now. I hope that you see an answer to it.

BrownEyedBoy, this really has nothing to do with privacy. As pointed out, there are areas in the world where there are unisex restrooms, and where nude men and nude women gather together (ever hear of nudist colonies)? And they seem to handle things just fine overall. So that comparison falls flat. It's just absolutely ludicrous to try and separate homosexual males from heterosexual males because one might hit on the other. If you really, honest to god feel uncomfortable, fine, then like suggested, wait until everyone else is done showering or hanging out in a room together or whatever.

And like I said earlier, if a guy DOES hit on you, JUST TELL THEM YOU AREN'T INTERESTED. And I'd say it's a very safe bet that 99% of the time, they WILL back off and leave you alone.

I just love how this is such a common fear among straight people-like they seem to think they're suddenly gonna become a magnet for gay people or something. What on earth makes you think that? Homosexuals have their preferences just as anyone else does, just because someone is gay doesn't mean they're going to fall all over every single person of their gender that moves.

You know, just like how I don't fall all over every single guy that crosses my line of vision. Once again, people are making this issue way, way, WAY more difficult than it needs to be.

Angela
 
Moonlit_Angel said:
BrownEyedBoy, this really has nothing to do with privacy. As pointed out, there are areas in the world where there are unisex restrooms, and where nude men and nude women gather together (ever hear of nudist colonies)? And they seem to handle things just fine overall. So that comparison falls flat.

Well, the comparison falls flat, I agree, but I disagree with that particular explanation. I still think that having gender-divided bathrooms makes sense. I think orientation-divided bathrooms are absurd.

Nudist colonies are a separate issue.
 
martha said:
To be fair, we don't know how hot BrownEyes is. :sexywink:

...this is true :). Good point.

phillyfan, eh, I too understand the reasoning behind separating men and women as far as bathrooms and such go, but I think the examples overall still fit anyway. I was just trying to say, "See, now here's a couple examples where men and women are partially or completely undressed in close quarters, and they generally seem to manage to control themselves just fine, so why couldn't the same happen in a room full of men or a room full of women?"

Angela
 
Moonlit_Angel said:
why couldn't the same happen in a room full of men or a room full of women?"

And the key to this question is the answer: it already does.
 
The general vibe I get from this narrow line of thinking is that, "Hey, I'm 'tolerant'...as long as I'm not 'inconvenienced' at all." Really, this is the height of self-centeredness. So-and-so has a pathologically irrational fear of "homosexuals" coming after them, and instead of sending that person to counseling to understand that these fears are wholly unfounded, we're now supposed to "segregate" an entirely invisible class of people, just so that person is "comfortable."

Let's cut through the crap, frankly. All this talk about removing homosexuals from locker rooms is beyond hysterical...and flat out isn't going to happen. The ones that are out aren't generally a threat, because they're probably secure and mature enough to handle themselves properly like an adult. And the small minority that could be a threat? They're the ones that would flat out insist that they're "heterosexual," and so you're never going to know. One way or another, this is an entirely moot point.

All that I can really say to this downright absurd attitude is to grow up. Seriously, grow up and get over yourself. You're going to deal with all kinds of different people in life, and you're never going to be able to get rid of them all. In that highly unlikely chance that you spot a man doing something unethical/unsavory, I'm pretty sure that you could get him removed. You deal with perverts--who, very clearly, exist within all kinds of sexual orientations--on an individual case-by-case basis; you don't stereotype an entire class of people, presume them all to be perverts, and get them removed from your presence. Because, by definition, that would make you a bigot.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom